Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 1/27/2006 4:31:39 AM EDT
Don'cha just love the democrat's distorted viewpoint.

Link Posted: 1/27/2006 11:43:59 AM EDT
Isn't it ironic that some feel that they are so open minded that they need not listen to any dissenting view points, how does that work?
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:10:21 PM EDT
What does "being open minded" mean?

For example. Let's say the topic is Canabalism. Some cultures condone the killing and eating of human beings. I'm sure they do this for many reasons. But I reject these reasons as valid and think the practice is wrong. Does this mean I'm not "open minded"? Or does it mean I've read the reasons but find them not convincing so have no need to suspend judgment further?

Then let's consider some hot button domestic topics. The Swinger lifestyle.

Now some will say "open minded" means unless you have personally attended some orgies one can't judge.

Others will say, "open minded" means that the definition of "swinging" is entirely subjective so that outside judgments are impossible. But in this case "open minded" means "non judgmental", not "open minded" as in temporarily suspending judgment until more useful data comes in.



Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:31:06 PM EDT
Not to be confrontational, but I missed your point. Care to elaborate?

When I made my above statement, I was vaguely referring to the so called "culture of acceptance" that many on the left claim to support. They would never dream of stereotyping and demeaning an African-American, or a Hispanic-American, nor would they pass judgement on homosexuals, or muslims, or the mentally impaired. But show them someone with a gun in their hands and they start spontaneously spewing words like "redneck", "hick", "racist", etc.

It's just a little bit (from above picture) Narrow minded, prejudiced, bigoted, and biased.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 2:40:19 PM EDT
People who aren't tolerant are nothing but uneducated, wife beating, inbreeding rednecks!
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 3:05:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
Not to be confrontational, but I missed your point. Care to elaborate?

When I made my above statement, I was vaguely referring to the so called "culture of acceptance" that many on the left claim to support. They would never dream of stereotyping and demeaning an African-American, or a Hispanic-American, nor would they pass judgement on homosexuals, or muslims, or the mentally impaired. But show them someone with a gun in their hands and they start spontaneously spewing words like "redneck", "hick", "racist", etc.

It's just a little bit (from above picture) Narrow minded, prejudiced, bigoted, and biased.



Yeah i see your point
Alito was in the princeton club they advocated keeping out blacks and women from princeton
Jerry jones the dean of a chritian university had banned interacial dating until last year
Roy Moore says this is a country founded on the christian religion when in fact that is not the casee. Wants the ten commandments put up but refuses to allow schools to put in shrines dedicated to santaria (voodoo)
Damm liberals!
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 5:53:04 AM EDT
The twisted thing is, liberals actually belive that.
Yet they never see how utterly hateful and vicious they can be, at the drop of a hat, with someone who disagrees with them.

Having a Libertarian viewpoint, I'm used to both sides being somewhat like this, but conservative minded people are usually kind of snarky if they disagree with you, whereas liberals have the pitchforks out from square one.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:12:30 AM EDT
What's worse is that we continue to focus on the "liberal" and "conservative" front thinking that there is really a difference.

I don't dispute that there is a difference in the published platform of the two camps but in the end it really doesn't matter because once elected neither side pays any attention to the agenda they set forth. That was just the BS required to get elected.

One rich Yale President is just like another, who cares what "patry" they subscribe to.

The only people that spend any time focusing on it is "us" we've been taught to argue about the differences in the stand each party takes, to align with one or the other, to fight the rubbish the other party cranks out public, all the while having our liberty and country stolen from us be people that are serving whatever agenda they were really going to serve all along.

Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:15:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2FALable:
What's worse is that we continue to focus on the "liberal" and "conservative" front thinking that there is really a difference.

I don't dispute that there is a difference in the published platform of the two camps but in the end it really doesn't matter because once elected neither side pays any attention to the agenda they set forth. That was just the BS required to get elected.

One rich Yale President is just like another, who cares what "patry" they subscribe to.

The only people that spend any time focusing on it is "us" we've been taught to argue about the differences in the stand each party takes, to align with one or the other, to fight the rubbish the other party cranks out public, all the while having our liberty and country stolen from us be people that are serving whatever agenda they were really going to serve all along.



That's just plain silly.
Bush says "god" alot.
Oh, and he says he doesn't like abortion.
And the Republicans prefer slightly less gun control than the Dems do.

See. There are MAJOR differences.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:25:56 AM EDT
Well gosh... Now it's all crystal clear to me..
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 7:28:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2FALable:
Well gosh... Now it's all crystal clear to me..


Glad I could help.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 9:21:04 AM EDT
"stereotyping and demeaning an African-American, or a Hispanic-American, nor would they pass judgement on homosexuals, or muslims, or the mentally impaired." Except when these "preferred victim clases" step off the victim plantation and adopt an opposing ideology, in which case their ethnicity/victim status is immediately revoked and they're savaged in the Press (cf. Michael Steele).

The key to understand liberals is the term "tactical relativism". It's not that they NEVER ever, has prejudices or stereotypes (they obviously do when it comes to lots of things) but that they SAY they're "open minded" and "tolerant" and "non judgmental" or that there's no right answer, or that there's no such thing as objective truth but that everything is subjective....that's there's no such thing as a "superior culture" as in "Western Civilization is no better than African civilization and to say so is an example of prejudice".

They say things that are patently false for the sake of either scoring a cheap shot or rhetorically painting themselves as the 'reasonable' ones when in reality they're full of it.

For example, what sense does it make to consider all civilizations equal? On what grounds and by what measurable criteria does it makes sense to start OFF a conversation with "Well, all civilizations are equally valid so...."?

IF they were consistent then the MSM would naturally be as critical of OTHER civilizations as they are of ours, but that's considered very bad taste to slam and nit pick other groups as much as we nit pick our own.

Look at the whole "non members of a racial group shall not criticise that group but members can" BS. What RATIONAL basis does the Left give to establish this rule?

The second thing to consider is the Left judges peoples' moral standing based on GOOD INTENTIONS, NOT ON ACCOMPLISHMENTS OR BOTTOM LINE ISSUES.

So Clinton gets heaps of praise for SAYING NICE THINGS, but a total pass for not actually accomplishing anything for the people he praised. Africa is a good example. He did next to nothing to actyually help people there (Somalia, Rwanda, S.Africa and AIDs - promote lifestyles that will increase non-monogamous sex while claiming 'condoms' will save them!).

Similarly, Clinton gets credit for "saving the environment" when he didn't DO anything to save it other than a last minute 11th hour hiking of EPA standards he knew Bush would have to drop to save the economy. He didn't push Kyoto (it died 95-0 in the Senate) but now gets to claim credit for it.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 11:28:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mytwocents:

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
Not to be confrontational, but I missed your point. Care to elaborate?

When I made my above statement, I was vaguely referring to the so called "culture of acceptance" that many on the left claim to support. They would never dream of stereotyping and demeaning an African-American, or a Hispanic-American, nor would they pass judgement on homosexuals, or muslims, or the mentally impaired. But show them someone with a gun in their hands and they start spontaneously spewing words like "redneck", "hick", "racist", etc.

It's just a little bit (from above picture) Narrow minded, prejudiced, bigoted, and biased.



Yeah i see your point
Alito was in the princeton club they advocated keeping out blacks and women from princeton
Jerry jones the dean of a chritian university had banned interacial dating until last year
Roy Moore says this is a country founded on the christian religion when in fact that is not the casee. Wants the ten commandments put up but refuses to allow schools to put in shrines dedicated to santaria (voodoo)
Damm liberals!



I sense some sarcasm in that post . I'm not saying that the conservatives don't discriminate, just that the so called tolerant liberals do it just as badly, they are just better at talking tolerance than the conservatives are.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 11:29:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2FALable:
What's worse is that we continue to focus on the "liberal" and "conservative" front thinking that there is really a difference.

I don't dispute that there is a difference in the published platform of the two camps but in the end it really doesn't matter because once elected neither side pays any attention to the agenda they set forth. That was just the BS required to get elected.

One rich Yale President is just like another, who cares what "party" they subscribe to.

The only people that spend any time focusing on it is "us" we've been taught to argue about the differences in the stand each party takes, to align with one or the other, to fight the rubbish the other party cranks out public, all the while having our liberty and country stolen from us be people that are serving whatever agenda they were really going to serve all along.




+1 to them both being untrustworthy scumbags.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 11:40:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2006 11:41:32 AM EDT by PanzerMK7]

Originally Posted By JusAdBellum:
"stereotyping and demeaning an African-American, or a Hispanic-American, nor would they pass judgement on homosexuals, or muslims, or the mentally impaired." Except when these "preferred victim clases" step off the victim plantation and adopt an opposing ideology, in which case their ethnicity/victim status is immediately revoked and they're savaged in the Press (cf. Michael Steele).

The key to understand liberals is the term "tactical relativism". It's not that they NEVER ever, has prejudices or stereotypes (they obviously do when it comes to lots of things) but that they SAY they're "open minded" and "tolerant" and "non judgmental" or that there's no right answer, or that there's no such thing as objective truth but that everything is subjective....that's there's no such thing as a "superior culture" as in "Western Civilization is no better than African civilization and to say so is an example of prejudice".

They say things that are patently false for the sake of either scoring a cheap shot or rhetorically painting themselves as the 'reasonable' ones when in reality they're full of it.

For example, what sense does it make to consider all civilizations equal? On what grounds and by what measurable criteria does it makes sense to start OFF a conversation with "Well, all civilizations are equally valid so...."?

IF they were consistent then the MSM would naturally be as critical of OTHER civilizations as they are of ours, but that's considered very bad taste to slam and nit pick other groups as much as we nit pick our own.

Look at the whole "non members of a racial group shall not criticise that group but members can" BS. What RATIONAL basis does the Left give to establish this rule?

The second thing to consider is the Left judges peoples' moral standing based on GOOD INTENTIONS, NOT ON ACCOMPLISHMENTS OR BOTTOM LINE ISSUES.

So Clinton gets heaps of praise for SAYING NICE THINGS, but a total pass for not actually accomplishing anything for the people he praised. Africa is a good example. He did next to nothing to actyually help people there (Somalia, Rwanda, S.Africa and AIDs - promote lifestyles that will increase non-monogamous sex while claiming 'condoms' will save them!).

Similarly, Clinton gets credit for "saving the environment" when he didn't DO anything to save it other than a last minute 11th hour hiking of EPA standards he knew Bush would have to drop to save the economy. He didn't push Kyoto (it died 95-0 in the Senate) but now gets to claim credit for it.



+1 for the liberals being more than ready to turn on one of their own if they step out of line.
+1 that the assertion that only members of an ethnic group can critique said group is stupid.
+1 that all cultures being considered equal is stupid, it's human nature to value your own civilization over others, and I would challenge any bleeding heart to spend a few weeks in sub-saharran Africa and then tell us that their culture is equally valid....assuming they survive of course .

Basically, I think neither party is entirely logical in their opinions at times, mostly because the majority of people haven't got a logical bone in their whole damn body. They just take what some politician said and run with it.
Top Top